# Brown v. Williams

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 27, 2008 · 282 F. App'x 282

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1026002

## Case

- **Full name:** Tiran Latrayer BROWN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William WILLIAMS; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland; James S. Smith, Respondents—Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 27, 2008
- **Citations:** 282 F. App'x 282
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Wilkinson, Motz, Gregory
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1026002

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6251

TIRAN LATRAYER BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM WILLIAMS; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the
State of Maryland; JAMES S. SMITH,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(1:06-cv-01696-WDQ)

Submitted: June 10, 2008 Decided: June 27, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tiran Latrayer Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Gary E. O. Connor, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Tiran Latrayer Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Except as provided in Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(6), neither this court nor the district court may extend

the time to note an appeal more than sixty days after the judgment

was entered. Ali v. Lyles, 769 F.2d 204, 205 (4th Cir. 1985).

This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v.

Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United

States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

October 29, 2007. The notice of appeal was filed on February 3,

2008.* Because Brown failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

*
For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the
court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).
We deny Brown’s request to treat his motion for an extension of
time to “research [his] next move” as a notice of appeal nunc pro
tunc, because the motion did not indicate Brown’s intent to seek
appellate review. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992).

- 2 -
to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 3 -

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1026002. Public record. Not legal advice.